Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1501 | control, N = 761 | treatment, N = 741 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 148 | 50.75 ± 12.59 (25 - 74) | 51.04 ± 12.43 (25 - 74) | 50.46 ± 12.83 (28 - 73) | 0.779 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 150 | 0.918 | |||
f | 115 (77%) | 58 (76%) | 57 (77%) | ||
m | 35 (23%) | 18 (24%) | 17 (23%) | ||
occupation | 150 | 0.802 | |||
day_training | 2 (1.3%) | 2 (2.6%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 19 (13%) | 10 (13%) | 9 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 13 (8.7%) | 6 (7.9%) | 7 (9.5%) | ||
other | 2 (1.3%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.7%) | ||
part_time | 27 (18%) | 13 (17%) | 14 (19%) | ||
retired | 40 (27%) | 20 (26%) | 20 (27%) | ||
self_employ | 7 (4.7%) | 4 (5.3%) | 3 (4.1%) | ||
student | 2 (1.3%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.7%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (1.3%) | 1 (1.3%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
unemploy | 36 (24%) | 20 (26%) | 16 (22%) | ||
marital | 150 | 0.903 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
divore | 16 (11%) | 10 (13%) | 6 (8.1%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (2.7%) | 2 (2.6%) | 2 (2.7%) | ||
married | 42 (28%) | 22 (29%) | 20 (27%) | ||
none | 75 (50%) | 36 (47%) | 39 (53%) | ||
seperation | 3 (2.0%) | 2 (2.6%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
widow | 9 (6.0%) | 4 (5.3%) | 5 (6.8%) | ||
edu | 150 | 0.134 | |||
bachelor | 36 (24%) | 13 (17%) | 23 (31%) | ||
diploma | 29 (19%) | 20 (26%) | 9 (12%) | ||
hd_ad | 4 (2.7%) | 3 (3.9%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
postgraduate | 13 (8.7%) | 6 (7.9%) | 7 (9.5%) | ||
primary | 9 (6.0%) | 3 (3.9%) | 6 (8.1%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 17 (11%) | 10 (13%) | 7 (9.5%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 35 (23%) | 19 (25%) | 16 (22%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 7 (4.7%) | 2 (2.6%) | 5 (6.8%) | ||
fam_income | 150 | 0.945 | |||
10001_12000 | 6 (4.0%) | 2 (2.6%) | 4 (5.4%) | ||
12001_14000 | 8 (5.3%) | 4 (5.3%) | 4 (5.4%) | ||
14001_16000 | 8 (5.3%) | 3 (3.9%) | 5 (6.8%) | ||
16001_18000 | 4 (2.7%) | 2 (2.6%) | 2 (2.7%) | ||
18001_20000 | 7 (4.7%) | 5 (6.6%) | 2 (2.7%) | ||
20001_above | 28 (19%) | 16 (21%) | 12 (16%) | ||
2001_4000 | 21 (14%) | 12 (16%) | 9 (12%) | ||
4001_6000 | 15 (10%) | 6 (7.9%) | 9 (12%) | ||
6001_8000 | 13 (8.7%) | 7 (9.2%) | 6 (8.1%) | ||
8001_10000 | 11 (7.3%) | 5 (6.6%) | 6 (8.1%) | ||
below_2000 | 29 (19%) | 14 (18%) | 15 (20%) | ||
medication | 150 | 132 (88%) | 67 (88%) | 65 (88%) | 0.952 |
onset_duration | 147 | 15.31 ± 10.57 (0 - 56) | 15.79 ± 11.44 (0 - 56) | 14.81 ± 9.62 (0 - 35) | 0.576 |
Unknown | 3 | 0 | 3 | ||
onset_age | 145 | 35.64 ± 13.87 (10 - 65) | 35.10 ± 12.56 (10 - 61) | 36.21 ± 15.18 (14 - 65) | 0.632 |
Unknown | 5 | 2 | 3 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1501 | control, N = 761 | treatment, N = 741 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 150 | 3.15 ± 1.16 (1 - 5) | 3.21 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.09 ± 1.10 (1 - 5) | 0.541 |
recovery_stage_b | 150 | 17.88 ± 2.77 (8 - 24) | 17.84 ± 2.88 (8 - 24) | 17.92 ± 2.67 (13 - 24) | 0.866 |
ras_confidence | 150 | 29.85 ± 5.06 (15 - 45) | 29.68 ± 4.79 (15 - 40) | 30.01 ± 5.35 (18 - 45) | 0.692 |
ras_willingness | 150 | 11.78 ± 2.03 (5 - 15) | 11.67 ± 2.00 (5 - 15) | 11.89 ± 2.06 (7 - 15) | 0.506 |
ras_goal | 150 | 17.35 ± 3.04 (11 - 25) | 17.16 ± 2.82 (11 - 24) | 17.54 ± 3.26 (11 - 25) | 0.443 |
ras_reliance | 150 | 13.15 ± 2.89 (5 - 20) | 13.00 ± 2.74 (5 - 18) | 13.31 ± 3.05 (7 - 20) | 0.512 |
ras_domination | 150 | 9.83 ± 2.39 (3 - 15) | 10.09 ± 2.30 (3 - 15) | 9.57 ± 2.47 (3 - 15) | 0.180 |
symptom | 150 | 29.99 ± 9.12 (14 - 56) | 29.83 ± 9.38 (14 - 55) | 30.15 ± 8.91 (15 - 56) | 0.831 |
slof_work | 150 | 22.43 ± 4.81 (10 - 30) | 22.82 ± 4.34 (13 - 30) | 22.03 ± 5.24 (10 - 30) | 0.316 |
slof_relationship | 150 | 25.08 ± 5.95 (9 - 35) | 24.71 ± 5.97 (9 - 35) | 25.46 ± 5.94 (11 - 35) | 0.443 |
satisfaction | 150 | 20.34 ± 7.14 (5 - 35) | 19.57 ± 6.78 (5 - 33) | 21.14 ± 7.45 (5 - 35) | 0.179 |
mhc_emotional | 150 | 10.77 ± 3.80 (3 - 18) | 10.53 ± 3.67 (3 - 17) | 11.01 ± 3.93 (3 - 18) | 0.434 |
mhc_social | 150 | 14.89 ± 5.59 (5 - 30) | 14.63 ± 5.53 (5 - 30) | 15.15 ± 5.68 (5 - 29) | 0.573 |
mhc_psychological | 150 | 21.77 ± 6.39 (6 - 36) | 21.57 ± 6.06 (7 - 36) | 21.99 ± 6.74 (6 - 36) | 0.688 |
resilisnce | 150 | 16.49 ± 4.65 (6 - 30) | 16.13 ± 4.13 (6 - 24) | 16.86 ± 5.13 (6 - 30) | 0.335 |
social_provision | 150 | 13.47 ± 2.89 (5 - 20) | 13.09 ± 2.59 (5 - 20) | 13.85 ± 3.13 (5 - 20) | 0.107 |
els_value_living | 150 | 16.91 ± 3.10 (5 - 25) | 16.57 ± 2.87 (6 - 22) | 17.27 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 0.165 |
els_life_fulfill | 150 | 12.69 ± 3.38 (4 - 20) | 12.26 ± 3.22 (5 - 19) | 13.14 ± 3.51 (4 - 20) | 0.115 |
els | 150 | 29.61 ± 5.90 (9 - 45) | 28.83 ± 5.42 (11 - 38) | 30.41 ± 6.29 (9 - 45) | 0.102 |
social_connect | 150 | 26.67 ± 9.41 (8 - 48) | 26.91 ± 9.07 (8 - 48) | 26.42 ± 9.80 (8 - 48) | 0.752 |
shs_agency | 150 | 14.16 ± 5.11 (3 - 24) | 13.75 ± 4.70 (3 - 21) | 14.58 ± 5.51 (3 - 24) | 0.321 |
shs_pathway | 150 | 15.98 ± 4.01 (4 - 24) | 15.57 ± 3.86 (5 - 24) | 16.41 ± 4.14 (4 - 24) | 0.201 |
shs | 150 | 30.14 ± 8.71 (7 - 48) | 29.32 ± 8.17 (8 - 45) | 30.99 ± 9.22 (7 - 48) | 0.242 |
esteem | 150 | 12.56 ± 1.62 (9 - 20) | 12.57 ± 1.61 (9 - 18) | 12.55 ± 1.64 (10 - 20) | 0.965 |
mlq_search | 150 | 14.78 ± 3.54 (3 - 21) | 14.53 ± 3.44 (6 - 21) | 15.04 ± 3.64 (3 - 21) | 0.375 |
mlq_presence | 150 | 13.29 ± 4.32 (3 - 21) | 13.12 ± 3.97 (4 - 21) | 13.47 ± 4.66 (3 - 21) | 0.617 |
mlq | 150 | 28.07 ± 6.92 (6 - 42) | 27.64 ± 6.34 (10 - 40) | 28.51 ± 7.48 (6 - 42) | 0.444 |
empower | 150 | 19.17 ± 4.21 (6 - 30) | 18.86 ± 4.09 (11 - 30) | 19.50 ± 4.32 (6 - 30) | 0.350 |
ismi_resistance | 150 | 14.47 ± 2.49 (5 - 20) | 14.47 ± 2.14 (10 - 20) | 14.47 ± 2.82 (5 - 20) | 0.999 |
ismi_discrimation | 150 | 11.66 ± 3.09 (5 - 20) | 11.93 ± 2.95 (5 - 20) | 11.38 ± 3.22 (5 - 20) | 0.272 |
sss_affective | 150 | 10.01 ± 3.54 (3 - 18) | 9.99 ± 3.47 (3 - 18) | 10.03 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 0.945 |
sss_behavior | 150 | 9.72 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 9.86 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 9.58 ± 3.69 (3 - 18) | 0.653 |
sss_cognitive | 150 | 8.25 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 8.21 ± 3.69 (3 - 18) | 8.28 ± 3.78 (3 - 18) | 0.905 |
sss | 150 | 27.97 ± 10.15 (9 - 54) | 28.05 ± 10.06 (9 - 54) | 27.89 ± 10.31 (9 - 54) | 0.923 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.21 | 0.133 | 2.95, 3.47 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.116 | 0.190 | -0.487, 0.256 | 0.541 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.075 | 0.208 | -0.334, 0.483 | 0.720 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.435 | 0.299 | -0.151, 1.02 | 0.149 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.8 | 0.325 | 17.2, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.077 | 0.463 | -0.830, 0.984 | 0.868 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.418 | 0.461 | -1.32, 0.486 | 0.367 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.926 | 0.662 | -0.370, 2.22 | 0.165 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.583 | 28.5, 30.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.329 | 0.829 | -1.30, 1.95 | 0.692 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.967 | 0.643 | -0.293, 2.23 | 0.137 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.826 | 0.923 | -0.982, 2.63 | 0.373 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.7 | 0.232 | 11.2, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.221 | 0.331 | -0.427, 0.869 | 0.505 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.351 | 0.258 | -0.857, 0.155 | 0.178 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.634 | 0.370 | -0.092, 1.36 | 0.091 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.357 | 16.5, 17.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.383 | 0.509 | -0.615, 1.38 | 0.453 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.056 | 0.453 | -0.832, 0.943 | 0.902 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.853 | 0.650 | -0.421, 2.13 | 0.193 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.326 | 12.4, 13.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.311 | 0.464 | -0.599, 1.22 | 0.504 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.374 | 0.355 | -0.321, 1.07 | 0.295 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.850 | 0.509 | -0.148, 1.85 | 0.099 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.1 | 0.268 | 9.57, 10.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.525 | 0.381 | -1.27, 0.223 | 0.171 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.292 | 0.363 | -1.00, 0.418 | 0.422 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.32 | 0.520 | 0.305, 2.34 | 0.013 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 1.052 | 27.8, 31.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.320 | 1.497 | -2.62, 3.25 | 0.831 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.611 | 0.932 | -2.44, 1.22 | 0.514 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.11 | 1.339 | -3.73, 1.51 | 0.410 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.8 | 0.550 | 21.7, 23.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.789 | 0.783 | -2.32, 0.746 | 0.315 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.508 | 0.604 | -1.69, 0.676 | 0.403 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.737 | 0.867 | -0.962, 2.44 | 0.398 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.7 | 0.681 | 23.4, 26.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.749 | 0.970 | -1.15, 2.65 | 0.441 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.496 | 0.718 | -1.90, 0.910 | 0.491 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.939 | 1.030 | -1.08, 2.96 | 0.365 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.6 | 0.821 | 18.0, 21.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.57 | 1.169 | -0.721, 3.86 | 0.181 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.768 | 0.872 | -0.941, 2.48 | 0.381 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.514 | 1.251 | -1.94, 2.97 | 0.683 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.5 | 0.431 | 9.68, 11.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.487 | 0.613 | -0.714, 1.69 | 0.428 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.288 | 0.428 | -0.551, 1.13 | 0.503 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.002 | 0.614 | -1.21, 1.20 | 0.998 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 14.6 | 0.663 | 13.3, 15.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.517 | 0.944 | -1.33, 2.37 | 0.585 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.539 | 0.727 | -0.887, 1.96 | 0.461 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.533 | 1.044 | -1.51, 2.58 | 0.611 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.758 | 20.1, 23.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.421 | 1.079 | -1.69, 2.54 | 0.697 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.881 | 0.837 | -0.760, 2.52 | 0.296 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.025 | 1.202 | -2.38, 2.33 | 0.983 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.1 | 0.522 | 15.1, 17.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.733 | 0.743 | -0.723, 2.19 | 0.325 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.372 | 0.616 | -0.835, 1.58 | 0.547 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.46 | 0.884 | -0.272, 3.19 | 0.103 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.033 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.331 | 12.4, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.759 | 0.471 | -0.163, 1.68 | 0.108 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.606 | 0.399 | -1.39, 0.177 | 0.133 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.881 | 0.573 | -0.242, 2.00 | 0.128 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.036 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.359 | 15.9, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.704 | 0.511 | -0.297, 1.71 | 0.170 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.399 | 0.407 | -0.400, 1.20 | 0.331 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.032 | 0.585 | -1.11, 1.18 | 0.956 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.380 | 11.5, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.872 | 0.541 | -0.188, 1.93 | 0.109 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.522 | 0.375 | -0.212, 1.26 | 0.168 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.059 | 0.538 | -1.11, 0.995 | 0.912 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.8 | 0.676 | 27.5, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.58 | 0.962 | -0.309, 3.46 | 0.103 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.923 | 0.643 | -0.337, 2.18 | 0.155 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.098 | 0.923 | -1.91, 1.71 | 0.916 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 26.9 | 1.093 | 24.8, 29.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.489 | 1.557 | -3.54, 2.56 | 0.754 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.607 | 1.040 | -1.43, 2.65 | 0.561 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.31 | 1.493 | -6.23, -0.380 | 0.030 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.585 | 12.6, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.831 | 0.833 | -0.802, 2.46 | 0.320 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.202 | 0.580 | -0.934, 1.34 | 0.728 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.655 | 0.832 | -0.976, 2.29 | 0.434 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.6 | 0.452 | 14.7, 16.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.840 | 0.644 | -0.422, 2.10 | 0.194 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.251 | 0.466 | -0.663, 1.16 | 0.592 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.013 | 0.670 | -1.32, 1.30 | 0.985 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 0.988 | 27.4, 31.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.67 | 1.407 | -1.09, 4.43 | 0.237 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.442 | 0.964 | -1.45, 2.33 | 0.648 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.635 | 1.384 | -2.08, 3.35 | 0.648 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.175 | 12.2, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.012 | 0.249 | -0.500, 0.476 | 0.962 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.171 | 0.265 | -0.349, 0.691 | 0.521 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.007 | 0.380 | -0.739, 0.752 | 0.986 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.402 | 13.7, 15.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.514 | 0.572 | -0.608, 1.64 | 0.370 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.438 | 0.512 | -0.565, 1.44 | 0.394 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.669 | 0.734 | -2.11, 0.770 | 0.365 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.491 | 12.2, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.355 | 0.699 | -1.02, 1.73 | 0.613 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.593 | 0.561 | -0.507, 1.69 | 0.294 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.165 | 0.805 | -1.74, 1.41 | 0.838 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.6 | 0.797 | 26.1, 29.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.869 | 1.135 | -1.36, 3.09 | 0.445 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.02 | 0.927 | -0.797, 2.84 | 0.275 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.806 | 1.331 | -3.42, 1.80 | 0.546 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.9 | 0.479 | 17.9, 19.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.645 | 0.682 | -0.692, 1.98 | 0.346 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.696 | 0.480 | -0.246, 1.64 | 0.152 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.760 | 0.690 | -2.11, 0.592 | 0.274 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.282 | 13.9, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.001 | 0.402 | -0.788, 0.787 | 0.999 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.142 | 0.380 | -0.887, 0.603 | 0.709 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.861 | 0.545 | -0.208, 1.93 | 0.118 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.356 | 11.2, 12.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.556 | 0.506 | -1.55, 0.437 | 0.274 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.151 | 0.395 | -0.924, 0.623 | 0.704 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.113 | 0.566 | -1.22, 0.997 | 0.842 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 9.99 | 0.403 | 9.20, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.040 | 0.574 | -1.09, 1.17 | 0.944 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.106 | 0.436 | -0.962, 0.749 | 0.808 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.07 | 0.626 | -2.30, 0.153 | 0.090 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 9.86 | 0.424 | 9.02, 10.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.274 | 0.603 | -1.46, 0.908 | 0.650 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.238 | 0.455 | -1.13, 0.654 | 0.602 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.463 | 0.653 | -1.74, 0.818 | 0.481 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.21 | 0.421 | 7.39, 9.04 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.073 | 0.599 | -1.10, 1.25 | 0.903 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.304 | 0.466 | -0.610, 1.22 | 0.516 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.19 | 0.670 | -2.50, 0.120 | 0.079 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.1 | 1.160 | 25.8, 30.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.161 | 1.651 | -3.40, 3.08 | 0.923 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.122 | 1.138 | -2.35, 2.11 | 0.915 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.53 | 1.634 | -5.73, 0.675 | 0.126 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.21 (95% CI [2.95, 3.47], t(210) = 24.12, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.26], t(210) = -0.61, p = 0.541; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.48], t(210) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.02], t(210) = 1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.87])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.84 (95% CI [17.21, 18.48], t(210) = 54.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.98], t(210) = 0.17, p = 0.868; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.32, 0.49], t(210) = -0.91, p = 0.364; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.37, 2.22], t(210) = 1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.79])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.68 (95% CI [28.54, 30.83], t(210) = 50.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.95], t(210) = 0.40, p = 0.691; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.29, 2.23], t(210) = 1.50, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.98, 2.63], t(210) = 0.90, p = 0.370; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.67 (95% CI [11.22, 12.13], t(210) = 50.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.87], t(210) = 0.67, p = 0.504; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.15], t(210) = -1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.36], t(210) = 1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.16 (95% CI [16.46, 17.86], t(210) = 48.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.38], t(210) = 0.75, p = 0.452; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.94], t(210) = 0.12, p = 0.902; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.42, 2.13], t(210) = 1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.00 (95% CI [12.36, 13.64], t(210) = 39.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.22], t(210) = 0.67, p = 0.503; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.07], t(210) = 1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.85], t(210) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.64])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.09 (95% CI [9.57, 10.62], t(210) = 37.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.22], t(210) = -1.37, p = 0.169; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.10])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.42], t(210) = -0.81, p = 0.420; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [0.31, 2.34], t(210) = 2.55, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.57, 95% CI [0.13, 1.01])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.83 (95% CI [27.77, 31.89], t(210) = 28.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-2.62, 3.25], t(210) = 0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-2.44, 1.22], t(210) = -0.66, p = 0.512; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.11, 95% CI [-3.73, 1.51], t(210) = -0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.82 (95% CI [21.74, 23.89], t(210) = 41.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.32, 0.75], t(210) = -1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.68], t(210) = -0.84, p = 0.400; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.96, 2.44], t(210) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.89e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.71 (95% CI [23.38, 26.05], t(210) = 36.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.15, 2.65], t(210) = 0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.90, 0.91], t(210) = -0.69, p = 0.489; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-1.08, 2.96], t(210) = 0.91, p = 0.362; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.57 (95% CI [17.96, 21.17], t(210) = 23.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.57, 95% CI [-0.72, 3.86], t(210) = 1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.94, 2.48], t(210) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.94, 2.97], t(210) = 0.41, p = 0.681; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.40e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.53 (95% CI [9.68, 11.37], t(210) = 24.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.69], t(210) = 0.79, p = 0.427; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.13], t(210) = 0.67, p = 0.501; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.91e-03, 95% CI [-1.21, 1.20], t(210) = -3.11e-03, p = 0.998; Std. beta = -5.08e-04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.88e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.63 (95% CI [13.33, 15.93], t(210) = 22.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-1.33, 2.37], t(210) = 0.55, p = 0.584; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.96], t(210) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.51, 2.58], t(210) = 0.51, p = 0.610; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.62e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.57 (95% CI [20.08, 23.05], t(210) = 28.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.69, 2.54], t(210) = 0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.76, 2.52], t(210) = 1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-2.38, 2.33], t(210) = -0.02, p = 0.983; Std. beta = -3.88e-03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.13 (95% CI [15.11, 17.15], t(210) = 30.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.72, 2.19], t(210) = 0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.58], t(210) = 0.60, p = 0.546; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.46, 95% CI [-0.27, 3.19], t(210) = 1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.70])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.09 (95% CI [12.44, 13.74], t(210) = 39.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.68], t(210) = 1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.18], t(210) = -1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.00], t(210) = 1.54, p = 0.124; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.57 (95% CI [15.86, 17.27], t(210) = 46.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.71], t(210) = 1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.20], t(210) = 0.98, p = 0.328; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.11, 1.18], t(210) = 0.06, p = 0.956; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.26 (95% CI [11.52, 13.01], t(210) = 32.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.93], t(210) = 1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.26], t(210) = 1.39, p = 0.164; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.11, 1.00], t(210) = -0.11, p = 0.912; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.83 (95% CI [27.50, 30.15], t(210) = 42.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.58, 95% CI [-0.31, 3.46], t(210) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.18], t(210) = 1.44, p = 0.151; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.91, 1.71], t(210) = -0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.91 (95% CI [24.76, 29.05], t(210) = 24.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-3.54, 2.56], t(210) = -0.31, p = 0.753; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.65], t(210) = 0.58, p = 0.560; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.31, 95% CI [-6.23, -0.38], t(210) = -2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.65, -0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.75 (95% CI [12.60, 14.90], t(210) = 23.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.46], t(210) = 1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.34], t(210) = 0.35, p = 0.727; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.98, 2.29], t(210) = 0.79, p = 0.431; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.57 (95% CI [14.68, 16.45], t(210) = 34.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.42, 2.10], t(210) = 1.30, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.66, 1.16], t(210) = 0.54, p = 0.591; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.32, 1.30], t(210) = -0.02, p = 0.985; Std. beta = -3.22e-03, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.32 (95% CI [27.38, 31.25], t(210) = 29.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [-1.09, 4.43], t(210) = 1.19, p = 0.235; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.45, 2.33], t(210) = 0.46, p = 0.647; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-2.08, 3.35], t(210) = 0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.38) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.79e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.57 (95% CI [12.22, 12.91], t(210) = 71.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.48], t(210) = -0.05, p = 0.962; Std. beta = -7.80e-03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.69], t(210) = 0.65, p = 0.519; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 6.64e-03, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.75], t(210) = 0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = 4.41e-03, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.09e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.53 (95% CI [13.74, 15.31], t(210) = 36.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.64], t(210) = 0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.56, 1.44], t(210) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-2.11, 0.77], t(210) = -0.91, p = 0.362; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.34e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.12 (95% CI [12.16, 14.08], t(210) = 26.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.02, 1.73], t(210) = 0.51, p = 0.612; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.69], t(210) = 1.06, p = 0.291; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.74, 1.41], t(210) = -0.21, p = 0.837; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.42e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.64 (95% CI [26.08, 29.21], t(210) = 34.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-1.36, 3.09], t(210) = 0.77, p = 0.444; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.84], t(210) = 1.10, p = 0.271; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-3.42, 1.80], t(210) = -0.61, p = 0.545; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.45e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.86 (95% CI [17.92, 19.79], t(210) = 39.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.98], t(210) = 0.95, p = 0.345; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.64], t(210) = 1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.76, 95% CI [-2.11, 0.59], t(210) = -1.10, p = 0.271; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.47 (95% CI [13.92, 15.03], t(210) = 51.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -7.11e-04, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.79], t(210) = -1.77e-03, p = 0.999; Std. beta = -2.87e-04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.60], t(210) = -0.37, p = 0.708; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.93], t(210) = 1.58, p = 0.114; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.78])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.96e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.93 (95% CI [11.24, 12.63], t(210) = 33.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.44], t(210) = -1.10, p = 0.272; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.62], t(210) = -0.38, p = 0.703; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.22, 1.00], t(210) = -0.20, p = 0.842; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.99 (95% CI [9.20, 10.78], t(210) = 24.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.09, 1.17], t(210) = 0.07, p = 0.944; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.75], t(210) = -0.24, p = 0.807; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.07, 95% CI [-2.30, 0.15], t(210) = -1.72, p = 0.086; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.28e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.86 (95% CI [9.02, 10.69], t(210) = 23.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.46, 0.91], t(210) = -0.45, p = 0.649; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.13, 0.65], t(210) = -0.52, p = 0.601; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.74, 0.82], t(210) = -0.71, p = 0.478; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.33e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.21 (95% CI [7.39, 9.04], t(210) = 19.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.25], t(210) = 0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.22], t(210) = 0.65, p = 0.514; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-2.50, 0.12], t(210) = -1.78, p = 0.075; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.05 (95% CI [25.78, 30.33], t(210) = 24.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-3.40, 3.08], t(210) = -0.10, p = 0.922; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-2.35, 2.11], t(210) = -0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.53, 95% CI [-5.73, 0.68], t(210) = -1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 677.586 | 687.711 | -335.793 | 671.586 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 677.839 | 698.091 | -332.920 | 665.839 | 5.746 | 3 | 0.125 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,050.741 | 1,060.867 | -522.371 | 1,044.741 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,054.203 | 1,074.454 | -521.101 | 1,042.203 | 2.538 | 3 | 0.468 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 1,281.787 | 1,291.913 | -637.894 | 1,275.787 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 1,277.903 | 1,298.155 | -632.952 | 1,265.903 | 9.884 | 3 | 0.020 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 879.802 | 889.928 | -436.901 | 873.802 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 881.405 | 901.657 | -434.702 | 869.405 | 4.397 | 3 | 0.222 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 1,082.286 | 1,092.412 | -538.143 | 1,076.286 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 1,082.957 | 1,103.209 | -535.478 | 1,070.957 | 5.329 | 3 | 0.149 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 1,032.633 | 1,042.759 | -513.316 | 1,026.633 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 1,025.491 | 1,045.743 | -506.745 | 1,013.491 | 13.142 | 3 | 0.004 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 968.029 | 978.155 | -481.014 | 962.029 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 965.782 | 986.033 | -476.891 | 953.782 | 8.247 | 3 | 0.041 |
symptom | null | 3 | 1,503.873 | 1,513.999 | -748.936 | 1,497.873 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 1,506.226 | 1,526.478 | -747.113 | 1,494.226 | 3.647 | 3 | 0.302 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 1,248.022 | 1,258.148 | -621.011 | 1,242.022 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 1,252.500 | 1,272.751 | -620.250 | 1,240.500 | 1.522 | 3 | 0.677 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 1,335.934 | 1,346.059 | -664.967 | 1,329.934 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 1,339.993 | 1,360.244 | -663.996 | 1,327.993 | 1.941 | 3 | 0.585 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 1,420.473 | 1,430.599 | -707.237 | 1,414.473 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 1,421.400 | 1,441.652 | -704.700 | 1,409.400 | 5.073 | 3 | 0.167 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,130.181 | 1,140.307 | -562.090 | 1,124.181 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,134.623 | 1,154.875 | -561.312 | 1,122.623 | 1.558 | 3 | 0.669 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 1,330.213 | 1,340.339 | -662.107 | 1,324.213 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 1,333.093 | 1,353.344 | -660.546 | 1,321.093 | 3.121 | 3 | 0.373 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 1,387.930 | 1,398.055 | -690.965 | 1,381.930 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 1,391.650 | 1,411.902 | -689.825 | 1,379.650 | 2.279 | 3 | 0.517 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 1,243.138 | 1,253.263 | -618.569 | 1,237.138 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 1,238.394 | 1,258.646 | -613.197 | 1,226.394 | 10.743 | 3 | 0.013 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,045.253 | 1,055.378 | -519.626 | 1,039.253 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,043.771 | 1,064.023 | -515.886 | 1,031.771 | 7.482 | 3 | 0.058 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,070.267 | 1,080.392 | -532.133 | 1,064.267 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,072.142 | 1,092.393 | -530.071 | 1,060.142 | 4.125 | 3 | 0.248 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 1,079.656 | 1,089.782 | -536.828 | 1,073.656 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 1,079.604 | 1,099.856 | -533.802 | 1,067.604 | 6.051 | 3 | 0.109 |
els | null | 3 | 1,324.265 | 1,334.391 | -659.132 | 1,318.265 | |||
els | random | 6 | 1,323.898 | 1,344.150 | -655.949 | 1,311.898 | 6.367 | 3 | 0.095 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 1,533.144 | 1,543.270 | -763.572 | 1,527.144 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 1,531.807 | 1,552.059 | -759.904 | 1,519.807 | 7.337 | 3 | 0.062 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,264.552 | 1,274.678 | -629.276 | 1,258.552 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,266.859 | 1,287.110 | -627.429 | 1,254.859 | 3.694 | 3 | 0.296 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 1,156.640 | 1,166.766 | -575.320 | 1,150.640 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 1,160.301 | 1,180.552 | -574.150 | 1,148.301 | 2.339 | 3 | 0.505 |
shs | null | 3 | 1,488.472 | 1,498.597 | -741.236 | 1,482.472 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 1,491.298 | 1,511.550 | -739.649 | 1,479.298 | 3.173 | 3 | 0.366 |
esteem | null | 3 | 787.762 | 797.888 | -390.881 | 781.762 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 792.903 | 813.155 | -390.452 | 780.903 | 0.859 | 3 | 0.835 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,129.711 | 1,139.837 | -561.856 | 1,123.711 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,134.354 | 1,154.605 | -561.177 | 1,122.354 | 1.358 | 3 | 0.715 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 1,204.251 | 1,214.376 | -599.125 | 1,198.251 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 1,208.342 | 1,228.593 | -598.171 | 1,196.342 | 1.909 | 3 | 0.592 |
mlq | null | 3 | 1,415.300 | 1,425.425 | -704.650 | 1,409.300 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 1,419.633 | 1,439.885 | -703.817 | 1,407.633 | 1.666 | 3 | 0.644 |
empower | null | 3 | 1,178.527 | 1,188.652 | -586.263 | 1,172.527 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 1,181.886 | 1,202.137 | -584.943 | 1,169.886 | 2.641 | 3 | 0.450 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 985.567 | 995.692 | -489.783 | 979.567 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 987.689 | 1,007.941 | -487.845 | 975.689 | 3.877 | 3 | 0.275 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 1,061.476 | 1,071.602 | -527.738 | 1,055.476 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 1,065.501 | 1,085.753 | -526.751 | 1,053.501 | 1.974 | 3 | 0.578 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,117.945 | 1,128.071 | -555.973 | 1,111.945 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,116.835 | 1,137.086 | -552.417 | 1,104.835 | 7.111 | 3 | 0.068 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,134.093 | 1,144.219 | -564.046 | 1,128.093 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,137.115 | 1,157.367 | -562.558 | 1,125.115 | 2.977 | 3 | 0.395 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,135.955 | 1,146.081 | -564.978 | 1,129.955 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,137.935 | 1,158.187 | -562.968 | 1,125.935 | 4.020 | 3 | 0.259 |
sss | null | 3 | 1,560.506 | 1,570.632 | -777.253 | 1,554.506 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 1,561.139 | 1,581.391 | -774.570 | 1,549.139 | 5.367 | 3 | 0.147 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 76 | 3.21 ± 1.16 | 74 | 3.09 ± 1.16 | 0.541 | 0.122 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 34 | 3.29 ± 1.13 | -0.079 | 32 | 3.60 ± 1.13 | -0.535 | 0.255 | -0.335 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 76 | 17.84 ± 2.83 | 74 | 17.92 ± 2.83 | 0.868 | -0.037 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 34 | 17.42 ± 2.67 | 0.203 | 32 | 18.43 ± 2.66 | -0.247 | 0.128 | -0.488 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 76 | 29.68 ± 5.08 | 74 | 30.01 ± 5.08 | 0.692 | -0.119 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 34 | 30.65 ± 4.34 | -0.350 | 32 | 31.81 ± 4.32 | -0.648 | 0.280 | -0.418 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 76 | 11.67 ± 2.02 | 74 | 11.89 ± 2.02 | 0.505 | -0.199 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 34 | 11.32 ± 1.73 | 0.316 | 32 | 12.17 ± 1.73 | -0.255 | 0.046 | -0.769 |
ras_goal | 1st | 76 | 17.16 ± 3.12 | 74 | 17.54 ± 3.12 | 0.453 | -0.193 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 34 | 17.21 ± 2.80 | -0.028 | 32 | 18.45 ± 2.80 | -0.459 | 0.075 | -0.624 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 76 | 13.00 ± 2.84 | 74 | 13.31 ± 2.84 | 0.504 | -0.204 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 34 | 13.37 ± 2.42 | -0.245 | 32 | 14.53 ± 2.40 | -0.803 | 0.052 | -0.762 |
ras_domination | 1st | 76 | 10.09 ± 2.34 | 74 | 9.57 ± 2.34 | 0.171 | 0.327 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 34 | 9.80 ± 2.16 | 0.182 | 32 | 10.60 ± 2.15 | -0.644 | 0.133 | -0.499 |
symptom | 1st | 76 | 29.83 ± 9.17 | 74 | 30.15 ± 9.17 | 0.831 | -0.081 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 34 | 29.22 ± 7.30 | 0.155 | 32 | 28.43 ± 7.25 | 0.436 | 0.660 | 0.200 |
slof_work | 1st | 76 | 22.82 ± 4.79 | 74 | 22.03 ± 4.79 | 0.315 | 0.304 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 34 | 22.31 ± 4.09 | 0.196 | 32 | 22.26 ± 4.07 | -0.088 | 0.959 | 0.020 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 76 | 24.71 ± 5.94 | 74 | 25.46 ± 5.94 | 0.441 | -0.244 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 34 | 24.21 ± 4.99 | 0.161 | 32 | 25.90 ± 4.97 | -0.144 | 0.170 | -0.549 |
satisfaction | 1st | 76 | 19.57 ± 7.16 | 74 | 21.14 ± 7.16 | 0.181 | -0.420 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 34 | 20.33 ± 6.03 | -0.205 | 32 | 22.42 ± 6.00 | -0.343 | 0.161 | -0.557 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 76 | 10.53 ± 3.75 | 74 | 11.01 ± 3.75 | 0.428 | -0.267 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 34 | 10.81 ± 3.10 | -0.158 | 32 | 11.30 ± 3.08 | -0.157 | 0.524 | -0.266 |
mhc_social | 1st | 76 | 14.63 ± 5.78 | 74 | 15.15 ± 5.78 | 0.585 | -0.165 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 34 | 15.17 ± 4.93 | -0.172 | 32 | 16.22 ± 4.90 | -0.343 | 0.387 | -0.336 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 76 | 21.57 ± 6.61 | 74 | 21.99 ± 6.61 | 0.697 | -0.117 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 34 | 22.45 ± 5.65 | -0.244 | 32 | 22.84 ± 5.62 | -0.237 | 0.776 | -0.110 |
resilisnce | 1st | 76 | 16.13 ± 4.55 | 74 | 16.86 ± 4.55 | 0.325 | -0.275 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 34 | 16.50 ± 3.99 | -0.139 | 32 | 18.70 ± 3.97 | -0.686 | 0.026 | -0.821 |
social_provision | 1st | 76 | 13.09 ± 2.88 | 74 | 13.85 ± 2.88 | 0.108 | -0.437 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 34 | 12.49 ± 2.55 | 0.349 | 32 | 14.13 ± 2.54 | -0.159 | 0.009 | -0.945 |
els_value_living | 1st | 76 | 16.57 ± 3.13 | 74 | 17.27 ± 3.13 | 0.170 | -0.401 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 34 | 16.96 ± 2.70 | -0.227 | 32 | 17.70 ± 2.69 | -0.245 | 0.268 | -0.419 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 76 | 12.26 ± 3.31 | 74 | 13.14 ± 3.31 | 0.109 | -0.546 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 34 | 12.79 ± 2.72 | -0.327 | 32 | 13.60 ± 2.71 | -0.290 | 0.226 | -0.509 |
els | 1st | 76 | 28.83 ± 5.89 | 74 | 30.41 ± 5.89 | 0.103 | -0.577 | ||
els | 2nd | 34 | 29.75 ± 4.79 | -0.338 | 32 | 31.23 ± 4.76 | -0.302 | 0.210 | -0.541 |
social_connect | 1st | 76 | 26.91 ± 9.53 | 74 | 26.42 ± 9.53 | 0.754 | 0.111 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 34 | 27.51 ± 7.75 | -0.137 | 32 | 23.72 ± 7.70 | 0.610 | 0.047 | 0.858 |
shs_agency | 1st | 76 | 13.75 ± 5.10 | 74 | 14.58 ± 5.10 | 0.320 | -0.336 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 34 | 13.95 ± 4.20 | -0.082 | 32 | 15.44 ± 4.18 | -0.347 | 0.151 | -0.601 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 76 | 15.57 ± 3.94 | 74 | 16.41 ± 3.94 | 0.194 | -0.421 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 34 | 15.82 ± 3.29 | -0.126 | 32 | 16.64 ± 3.27 | -0.119 | 0.307 | -0.414 |
shs | 1st | 76 | 29.32 ± 8.62 | 74 | 30.99 ± 8.62 | 0.237 | -0.407 | ||
shs | 2nd | 34 | 29.76 ± 7.06 | -0.108 | 32 | 32.06 ± 7.02 | -0.262 | 0.185 | -0.561 |
esteem | 1st | 76 | 12.57 ± 1.52 | 74 | 12.55 ± 1.52 | 0.962 | 0.010 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 34 | 12.74 ± 1.47 | -0.142 | 32 | 12.73 ± 1.47 | -0.148 | 0.989 | 0.004 |
mlq_search | 1st | 76 | 14.53 ± 3.51 | 74 | 15.04 ± 3.51 | 0.370 | -0.230 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 34 | 14.96 ± 3.16 | -0.196 | 32 | 14.81 ± 3.15 | 0.103 | 0.842 | 0.069 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 76 | 13.12 ± 4.28 | 74 | 13.47 ± 4.28 | 0.613 | -0.146 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 34 | 13.71 ± 3.71 | -0.245 | 32 | 13.90 ± 3.69 | -0.176 | 0.836 | -0.078 |
mlq | 1st | 76 | 27.64 ± 6.95 | 74 | 28.51 ± 6.95 | 0.445 | -0.216 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 34 | 28.67 ± 6.05 | -0.254 | 32 | 28.73 ± 6.03 | -0.053 | 0.967 | -0.016 |
empower | 1st | 76 | 18.86 ± 4.18 | 74 | 19.50 ± 4.18 | 0.346 | -0.314 | ||
empower | 2nd | 34 | 19.55 ± 3.45 | -0.339 | 32 | 19.44 ± 3.43 | 0.031 | 0.892 | 0.056 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 76 | 14.47 ± 2.46 | 74 | 14.47 ± 2.46 | 0.999 | 0.000 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 34 | 14.33 ± 2.27 | 0.085 | 32 | 15.19 ± 2.26 | -0.428 | 0.125 | -0.512 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 76 | 11.93 ± 3.10 | 74 | 11.38 ± 3.10 | 0.274 | 0.327 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 34 | 11.78 ± 2.66 | 0.089 | 32 | 11.11 ± 2.64 | 0.155 | 0.306 | 0.394 |
sss_affective | 1st | 76 | 9.99 ± 3.52 | 74 | 10.03 ± 3.52 | 0.944 | -0.021 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 34 | 9.88 ± 2.98 | 0.057 | 32 | 8.85 ± 2.97 | 0.630 | 0.160 | 0.552 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 76 | 9.86 ± 3.69 | 74 | 9.58 ± 3.69 | 0.650 | 0.140 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 34 | 9.62 ± 3.13 | 0.122 | 32 | 8.88 ± 3.11 | 0.359 | 0.338 | 0.377 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 76 | 8.21 ± 3.67 | 74 | 8.28 ± 3.67 | 0.903 | -0.036 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 34 | 8.51 ± 3.14 | -0.152 | 32 | 7.40 ± 3.12 | 0.442 | 0.148 | 0.557 |
sss | 1st | 76 | 28.05 ± 10.11 | 74 | 27.89 ± 10.11 | 0.923 | 0.033 | ||
sss | 2nd | 34 | 27.93 ± 8.31 | 0.025 | 32 | 25.24 ± 8.25 | 0.546 | 0.189 | 0.554 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(199.66) = -0.61, p = 0.541, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.26)
2st
t(204.63) = 1.14, p = 0.255, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.87)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(188.60) = 0.17, p = 0.868, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.84 to 0.99)
2st
t(201.52) = 1.53, p = 0.128, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.29 to 2.30)
ras_confidence
1st
t(169.64) = 0.40, p = 0.692, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.97)
2st
t(207.41) = 1.08, p = 0.280, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.95 to 3.26)
ras_willingness
1st
t(170.01) = 0.67, p = 0.505, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.87)
2st
t(207.16) = 2.01, p = 0.046, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.69)
ras_goal
1st
t(178.48) = 0.75, p = 0.453, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.39)
2st
t(202.68) = 1.79, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.12 to 2.60)
ras_reliance
1st
t(168.89) = 0.67, p = 0.504, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.23)
2st
t(207.93) = 1.96, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.33)
ras_domination
1st
t(184.00) = -1.37, p = 0.171, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.23)
2st
t(201.50) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.85)
symptom
1st
t(160.93) = 0.21, p = 0.831, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.64 to 3.28)
2st
t(212.00) = -0.44, p = 0.660, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-4.32 to 2.74)
slof_work
1st
t(169.39) = -1.01, p = 0.315, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-2.33 to 0.76)
2st
t(207.58) = -0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.03 to 1.93)
slof_relationship
1st
t(167.35) = 0.77, p = 0.441, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.17 to 2.66)
2st
t(209.02) = 1.38, p = 0.170, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.73 to 4.11)
satisfaction
1st
t(167.74) = 1.34, p = 0.181, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.74 to 3.88)
2st
t(208.74) = 1.41, p = 0.161, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.84 to 5.00)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(164.85) = 0.79, p = 0.428, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.70)
2st
t(210.66) = 0.64, p = 0.524, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.98)
mhc_social
1st
t(169.35) = 0.55, p = 0.585, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.35 to 2.38)
2st
t(207.61) = 0.87, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.34 to 3.44)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(169.71) = 0.39, p = 0.697, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.71 to 2.55)
2st
t(207.36) = 0.28, p = 0.776, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.34 to 3.13)
resilisnce
1st
t(173.55) = 0.99, p = 0.325, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.20)
2st
t(204.93) = 2.24, p = 0.026, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (0.26 to 4.13)
social_provision
1st
t(175.07) = 1.61, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.69)
2st
t(204.12) = 2.62, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (0.41 to 2.87)
els_value_living
1st
t(171.18) = 1.38, p = 0.170, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.71)
2st
t(206.38) = 1.11, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.57 to 2.05)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(164.57) = 1.61, p = 0.109, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.94)
2st
t(210.83) = 1.21, p = 0.226, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.13)
els
1st
t(163.21) = 1.64, p = 0.103, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.32 to 3.48)
2st
t(211.51) = 1.26, p = 0.210, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.84 to 3.80)
social_connect
1st
t(163.22) = -0.31, p = 0.754, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-3.56 to 2.58)
2st
t(211.50) = -1.99, p = 0.047, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-7.55 to -0.04)
shs_agency
1st
t(164.73) = 1.00, p = 0.320, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.48)
2st
t(210.73) = 1.44, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.55 to 3.52)
shs_pathway
1st
t(166.41) = 1.30, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.43 to 2.11)
2st
t(209.66) = 1.02, p = 0.307, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.42)
shs
1st
t(164.14) = 1.19, p = 0.237, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.11 to 4.45)
2st
t(211.06) = 1.33, p = 0.185, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-1.11 to 5.72)
esteem
1st
t(195.88) = -0.05, p = 0.962, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.48)
2st
t(203.13) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.71)
mlq_search
1st
t(178.81) = 0.90, p = 0.370, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.64)
2st
t(202.57) = -0.20, p = 0.842, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.69 to 1.38)
mlq_presence
1st
t(171.52) = 0.51, p = 0.613, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.74)
2st
t(206.15) = 0.21, p = 0.836, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.98)
mlq
1st
t(172.64) = 0.77, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.37 to 3.11)
2st
t(205.46) = 0.04, p = 0.967, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.87 to 3.00)
empower
1st
t(165.21) = 0.95, p = 0.346, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.99)
2st
t(210.44) = -0.14, p = 0.892, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.56)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(183.57) = -0.00, p = 0.999, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.79 to 0.79)
2st
t(201.55) = 1.54, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.96)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(169.93) = -1.10, p = 0.274, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.44)
2st
t(207.21) = -1.03, p = 0.306, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.96 to 0.62)
sss_affective
1st
t(168.61) = 0.07, p = 0.944, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.17)
2st
t(208.13) = -1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-2.48 to 0.41)
sss_behavior
1st
t(168.30) = -0.45, p = 0.650, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.46 to 0.92)
2st
t(208.35) = -0.96, p = 0.338, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.25 to 0.78)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(169.88) = 0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.11 to 1.26)
2st
t(207.24) = -1.45, p = 0.148, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-2.64 to 0.40)
sss
1st
t(164.36) = -0.10, p = 0.923, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-3.42 to 3.10)
2st
t(210.94) = -1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-6.71 to 1.33)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(103.00) = 2.37, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.08 to 0.94)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(91.72) = 1.07, p = 0.579, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.46)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(77.27) = 2.70, p = 0.017, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.47 to 3.12)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(77.52) = 1.06, p = 0.584, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.81)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(83.53) = 1.94, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.84)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(76.77) = 3.34, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (0.49 to 1.95)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(87.83) = 2.75, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (0.29 to 1.78)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(71.66) = -1.79, p = 0.156, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-3.64 to 0.20)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(77.10) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.47)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(75.75) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.92)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(76.00) = 1.42, p = 0.318, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.51 to 3.08)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(74.13) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.17)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(77.08) = 1.43, p = 0.315, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.57)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(77.32) = 0.99, p = 0.651, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.87 to 2.58)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(79.96) = 2.88, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.57 to 3.10)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(81.03) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.10)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(78.32) = 1.02, p = 0.618, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.27)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(73.94) = 1.20, p = 0.471, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.23)
els
1st vs 2st
t(73.08) = 1.24, p = 0.436, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.50 to 2.15)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(73.09) = -2.51, p = 0.028, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-4.84 to -0.56)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(74.05) = 1.43, p = 0.313, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.34 to 2.05)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(75.13) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.20)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(73.68) = 1.08, p = 0.566, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.91 to 3.06)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(98.74) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.37 to 0.72)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(83.77) = -0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.82)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(78.55) = 0.74, p = 0.926, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.58)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(79.32) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.69 to 2.12)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(74.36) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.92)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(87.48) = 1.83, p = 0.142, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.50)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(77.46) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.55)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(76.58) = -2.62, p = 0.021, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-2.08 to -0.28)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(76.38) = -1.49, p = 0.280, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.64 to 0.24)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(77.44) = -1.84, p = 0.138, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-1.85 to 0.07)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(73.81) = -2.25, p = 0.054, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-4.99 to -0.31)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(101.70) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.49)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(90.83) = -0.90, p = 0.738, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.34 to 0.50)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(76.88) = 1.50, p = 0.276, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.25)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(77.12) = -1.36, p = 0.358, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-0.87 to 0.16)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(82.93) = 0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.96)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(76.39) = 1.05, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.08)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(87.08) = -0.80, p = 0.849, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.02 to 0.43)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(71.44) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.47 to 1.25)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(76.72) = -0.84, p = 0.809, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.71 to 0.70)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(75.41) = -0.69, p = 0.985, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.93 to 0.94)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(75.65) = 0.88, p = 0.765, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.97 to 2.51)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(73.83) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.14)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(76.69) = 0.74, p = 0.925, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.99)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(76.93) = 1.05, p = 0.595, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.55)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(79.48) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.60)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(80.52) = -1.51, p = 0.270, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.40 to 0.19)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(77.89) = 0.98, p = 0.665, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.21)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(73.66) = 1.39, p = 0.338, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.27)
els
1st vs 2st
t(72.82) = 1.43, p = 0.313, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.21)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(72.83) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.69)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(73.76) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.36)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(74.81) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.18)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(73.40) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.49 to 2.37)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(97.59) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.70)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(83.17) = 0.85, p = 0.792, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.46)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(78.12) = 1.05, p = 0.591, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.71)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(78.87) = 1.10, p = 0.553, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.87)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(74.06) = 1.44, p = 0.305, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.66)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(86.74) = -0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.90 to 0.62)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(77.07) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.64)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(76.21) = -0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.77)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(76.01) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.15 to 0.67)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(77.04) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.24)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(73.53) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.40 to 2.15)
Plot
